4 ms·
You had me in the first half, but your conclusion confuses me. This UFC level of response is what happens when other researchers smell blood in the water. It's
by russdill 4y ago
You had me in the first half, but your conclusion confuses me. This UFC level of response is what happens when other researchers smell blood in the water. It's the exact opposite of blind belief.
Similar but less interested to people outside of the field in question quarrels occur when fellow researchers find a crack somewhere in what's been published, or even more excitingly, widely accepted.
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoI worded that confusingly, what was meant is the general public's perception of the academic world, not researchers themselves. We're in complete agreement about the reaction and in my opinion it's an appropriate one. If this guy made up the data he needs to go down.
- russdill 4y agoMaybe blind trust in science is the wrong way to phrase it. People tend to blindly believe and click on whatever validates their own beliefs without caring about the reality of scientific consensus. There's always an endless parade of news articles with "study finds" or "scientists say" with zero context.
- andrewflnr 4y ago"Blind trust in science" is the wrong way to phrase it, which is exactly the problem, because people do it anyway. The popular meme is to "go with the science", regardless of the fact that that's barely definable. BTW it's really clear in cases where the "science" result is orthogonal to their existing beliefs: did "pro-maskers" have opinions about masks[0] in 2019? Mostly no. Now think about, say, astronomy results. Lots of people will just go with it, whatever it is, if it has a convincing "science" label on it. [0] DON'T PANIC, I think masks are fine.
- romeros 4y agoScience is one step backwards for every two steps forward. Scientific consensus is often overturned once we get more facts and once we get more research done.